[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: char* parameters -> const char* ?
Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
> We could change them like some vendors (ie: Netscape) have. The only
> issue is how strict do you want to follow the published specs (RFC_1823
> for v2, draft-ietf-ldapext-ldap-c-api-01 for v3) and what problems might
> occur do that change.
Change it and write to ldapext about it - that'll be an argument for
fixing the draft before it becomes an RFC. The draft is already
somewhat incompatible with rfc1823, so openldap can't stay compatible
with both anyway.
> We could make the change conditional. That is, have a flag -DLDAP_API_STRICT
> or -DLDAP_API_CONST (depending on what we decide the default behavior
> should be) that would define LDAP_CONST appropriately. The prototypes
> would get a uglier, but it would provide a bit of flexibility.
Sounds useful, at least until we know what the final ldap-c-api draft
will look like. And it would be easy to change "LDAP_CONST" -> "const"
and/or remove some "LDAP_CONST"s, if we want to.